This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-654R
entitled 'The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Critical
Infrastructure Protection Cost-Benefit Report' which was released on
June 26, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-09-654R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 26, 2009:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Chairman:
The Honorable Harold Rogers:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
Subject: The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Critical
Infrastructure Protection Cost-Benefit Report:
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, damaging critical
infrastructure, such as oil platforms, pipelines, and refineries; water
mains; electric power lines; and cellular phone towers. The
infrastructure damage and resulting chaos disrupted government and
business functions alike, producing cascading effects far beyond the
physical location of the storm. Threats against critical infrastructure
are not limited to natural disasters. For example, in 2005, suicide
bombers struck London's public transportation system, disrupting the
city's transportation and mobile telecommunications infrastructure. In
March 2007, we reported that our nation's critical infrastructures and
key resources (CIKR)--systems and assets, whether physical or virtual,
so vital to the United States that their incapacity or destruction
would have a debilitating impact on national security, national
economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination
of those matters--continue to be vulnerable to a wide variety of
threats.[Footnote 1] According to DHS, because the private sector owns
approximately 85 percent of the nation's CIKR--banking and financial
institutions, telecommunications networks, and energy production and
transmission facilities, among others--it is vital that the public and
private sectors work together to protect these assets.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created DHS and gave the department
wide-ranging responsibilities for, among other things, leading and
coordinating the overall national critical infrastructure protection
effort.[Footnote 2] For example, the act required DHS to (1) develop a
comprehensive national plan for securing the nation's CIKR and (2)
recommend measures to protect CIKR in coordination with other agencies
of the federal government and in cooperation with state and local
government agencies and authorities, the private sector, and other
entities. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7) further
defined critical infrastructure protection responsibilities for DHS and
those federal agencies--known as sector-specific agencies (SSA)--
responsible for particular industry sectors, such as transportation,
energy, and communications. HSPD-7 directed DHS to establish uniform
policies, approaches, guidelines, and methodologies for integrating
federal infrastructure protection and risk management activities within
and across CIKR sectors.[Footnote 3] Also, in accordance with the
Homeland Security Act and in response to HSPD-7, DHS issued, in June
2006, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), which
provides the overarching approach for integrating the nation's many
CIKR protection initiatives into a single national effort. The NIPP
sets forth a comprehensive risk management framework and clearly
defined roles and responsibilities for DHS, SSAs, and other federal,
state, regional, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector
partners implementing the NIPP.[Footnote 4] Within this framework DHS
has emphasized the importance of collaboration and partnering with CIKR
stakeholders, and relies on voluntary information sharing between the
private sector and DHS to better protect and ensure the resiliency of
CIKR in the United States.
The Conference Report accompanying the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act, 2005, directed DHS to complete an analysis on
whether the department should require private sector entities to
provide DHS with existing information about their security measures and
vulnerabilities in order to improve the department's ability to
evaluate critical infrastructure protection nationwide.[Footnote 5]
This direction was consistent with concerns raised by the House
Appropriations Committee about DHS's progress conducting vulnerability
assessments for critical infrastructure facilities generally, and
security measures at chemical facilities in particular. The analysis
was to include all critical infrastructure, including chemical plants;
the costs to the private sector for implementing such a requirement;
the benefits of obtaining the information; and costs to DHS's
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) (presently
the Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP)) to implement this
requirement.[Footnote 6] The Conference Report further directed us to
review the quality of the analysis and report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within 3 months after completion of the
analysis. DHS provided us a copy of the report on February 23, 2009.
According to DHS, the report was completed in 2005 and information was
subsequently updated in June 2007.[Footnote 7] However, based on
discussions with your staff and IP officials, the report was never
delivered to the Senate and House Appropriation Committees. As agreed
with your staff in March 2009, due to the age of DHS's report, this
correspondence summarizes DHS's approach for preparing its report and
documents the results of our efforts in order to fulfill our
responsibility as directed in Conference Report 108-774.
To determine DHS's approach for preparing the report, we reviewed the
cost-benefit report and met with DHS officials in IP to better
understand how the report was prepared and why it was prepared in that
manner. We also compared it to Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-4 which provides criteria federal agencies are to use when
performing a regulatory analysis. Specifically, the circular, which is
based on best practices, is designed to standardize the way benefits
and costs of federal regulatory actions are measured and reported to
(1) help learn if the benefits of a proposed action are likely to
justify the costs, and (2) discover which of the possible alternatives
is the most cost-effective. Among other things, the circular stipulates
that the regulatory analysis include a quantitative analysis of costs
and benefits.[Footnote 8] In unusual cases where there is no quantified
information on either benefits or costs, the circular allows agencies
to do a qualitative analysis and suggests that professional judgment be
used to highlight those costs and benefits believed to be the most
important. In either case, the circular calls for agencies to compare
the benefits with the costs in the regulatory analysis.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2009 to June 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results:
DHS used two contractors to complete the cost-benefit report at a cost
of about $3.4 million.[Footnote 9] In August 2005, the first contractor
developed a draft proposal that discussed the scope of the information
required to complete the report and the security and vulnerability
information currently available to DHS. It also proposed surveying the
public and private sectors to collect information on the costs and
benefits of providing vulnerability assessment and security information
to DHS. DHS officials said that DHS rejected this approach because DHS
was involved in developing a public-private partnership structure and
officials believed that doing a survey on possible regulatory costs
would have adversely affected the partnership building process. DHS
officials also said that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)--which
requires agency requests for information to undergo internal and Office
of Management and Budget review and approval and includes, among other
requirements, public comment periods for the proposed information-
gathering method[Footnote 10]--could have resulted in some delays in
gathering data for the report, but it was not the primary reason for
rejecting the proposed survey approach.
DHS subsequently tasked the second contractor to complete the report
using a different methodology, and according to DHS, this contractor
produced a draft report in December 2005. This contractor compiled
publicly available information on the costs and benefits to the public
and private sectors of requiring vulnerability and security information
be provided to DHS. Although the second contractor's report discussed
potential public and private sector costs and benefits, it did not
articulate which of these costs and benefits were most important, nor
did it conclude whether the costs exceeded the benefits, or vice a
versa, with regard to potential requirements for the private sector to
provide information on vulnerabilities and existing security measures.
Circular A-4 states that the objective of cost-benefit analysis is to
produce a measure of the difference between benefits and costs and that
when costs and benefits are based on a qualitative analysis, those
deemed to be the most important are to be highlighted. DHS took receipt
of the second contractor's report and, according to DHS officials,
continued to revise it throughout the following year to incorporate
information from the final NIPP and it's supporting sector specific
plans.[Footnote 11] In addition to a discussion of potential costs and
benefits, DHS's final report, dated June 2007, includes a general
discussion of critical infrastructure risk management and associated
information needs, an overview of the existing regulatory environment
for each of the CIKR sectors, and the availability of security
information and its utility to security partners, such as CIKR owners
and operators.[Footnote 12] DHS officials said that they did not
perform a cost-benefit analysis consistent with Circular A-4 because at
the time they were required to do the report, they did not have
quantifiable data to do such an analysis. They further explained that
DHS was developing the report while DHS's Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection group (now IP) was in the process of being
established and prior to DHS's development of an accepted framework for
compiling security and vulnerability information and assessing risk. In
the absence of this framework, the officials said that contractor staff
was tasked to compile material from published unclassified sources on
the existing regulatory structure in the 17 sectors and draft the
report, which was reviewed by DHS staff. They also said that DHS
updated the report in 2007 to account for changes that had taken place
since 2005, including a statutory requirement that DHS issue
regulations requiring vulnerability assessments for certain chemical
facilities and the development and implementation of site security
plans for those facilities.[Footnote 13] DHS officials also noted that
the interim NIPP was available while the draft was being prepared and
it was used to help guide the development of the final report.
DHS officials told us that they believe the final report was useful
because it provided insights on different regulatory approaches across
sectors and used appendixes to present more detailed regulatory
overviews of three sectors--the chemical sector, the electricity sub
sector of the energy sector, and the food and agriculture sector. They
added that some sectors used this information to help write sector
specific plans (SSPs) that are to augment the NIPP and detail the
application of the NIPP framework to each CIKR sector.[Footnote 14]
Nonetheless, DHS officials said that they believe that the report is
outdated because DHS's CIKR program has evolved and matured since the
report was originally completed, including DHS's efforts to promote and
achieve voluntary information sharing between DHS and the private
sector. Regarding the latter, DHS officials stated that they believe
that the type of report directed by the Conference Report--that DHS
analyze whether private sector entities should be required to provide
information to the department--conflicts with the partnering/voluntary
information-sharing approach DHS was already mandated to pursue under
the Homeland Security Act.[Footnote 15]
In February 2009, DHS provided us with a separate document referred to
as the Executive Summary: Update of the Cost Benefit Report. This
document included an elaboration of how DHS's partnering arrangement
has evolved since the 2005 report was undertaken. This evolution
occurred via the formation and continued maturation of the SSA concept,
where the federal departments and agencies identified in HSPD-7 as
responsible for CIKR protection activities in specified CIKR sectors
lead the coordination effort for CIKR protection in those sectors; the
formation of government and sector coordinating councils (GCCs and
SCCs);[Footnote 16] and the issuance of critical infrastructure
protection planning documents, including the NIPP and SSPs. Officials
identified several other mechanisms that have been developed to share
CIKR information and improve critical information protection. These
include the CIKR Information Sharing Environment that is designed to
address the complex requirements of information sharing among diverse
sectors having different characteristics such as ownership patterns,
history of collaboration, types and extent of interdependencies, and
regulatory requirements. According to DHS, the Infrastructure Analysis
and Strategy Division and DHS's Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk
Analysis Center (HITRAC)[Footnote 17] have undertaken activities to
enhance the ability of the private sector to prevent, protect against,
and respond to terrorist attacks and all-hazards incidents impacting
CIKR. These activities include individual sector threat assessments and
the development of a common risk model to be deployed across all
sectors to evaluate risks associated with infrastructure
security.[Footnote 18] We did not evaluate whether these actions are
adequate to address the CIKR security and vulnerability concerns that
led to the conference report language directing DHS to do the cost-
benefit report. Such a study on our part would entail, among other
things, a closer examination of the sources used by DHS to obtain cost
and benefit information, including whether alternative sources or
methods would yield more complete data, and discussions with
representatives from some or all of the CIKR sectors to assess the
completeness and appropriateness of the DHS approach--which is beyond
the scope of this review.
As discussed with your staff, because the DHS report is several years
old and given DHS's evolving approach to CIKR partnering that it
reports has improved CIKR information sharing and security, further
analysis of the report would not be beneficial. Therefore, this
correspondence represents the fulfillment of our responsibility as
directed in Conference Report 108-774.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of
Homeland Security. DHS provided written comments on June 17, 2009 which
are summarized below and reprinted in Enclosure II.
In its comments, DHS did not state whether it concurred with the
contents of the draft report but emphasized that the primary basis for
the approach taken in 2005 to develop the cost-benefit report was to
assure that the Department's mandated public-private partnership
building activity be performed without disruption. It said that a data
collection effort to identify costs and benefits for a regulatory
approach to collecting information from the private sector would have
stopped this process with questionable success at acquiring the
information. DHS added that the PRA was not the primary factor in the
approach chosen as suggested in the draft report. We have revised
language in the report to clarify that the PRA was, according to DHS, a
contributing factor, not the primary factor, in making the decision
about which approach to choose. Finally, DHS reiterated that the cost-
benefit report has proved beneficial to DHS because it helped shape the
development of the regulatory process put into place for selected
chemical facilities and provided the basis for developing the current
CIKR information sharing environment. DHS also provided technical
comments which we have incorporated where appropriate.
We will send copies of this correspondence to the Secretary of Homeland
Security and interested congressional committees and subcommittees. We
will also make copies available to others on request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff has any questions about this report or wish to
discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or
caldwells@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. In addition to the contact named above, John Mortin, Assistant
Director and Tony DeFrank, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment.
Chuck Bausell assisted with design and methodology. Thomas Lombardi
provided legal support and Katherine Davis provided assistance in
report preparation.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Stephen L. Caldwell:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
Enclosures:
[End of section]
Enclosure I:
Sector-Specific Agencies (SSAs), and Critical Infrastructure and Key
Resource (CIKR) Sectors:
The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) provides a framework
for organizing and managing risk to the U.S.'s CIKR. The NIPP outlines
the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and other security partners--including other federal agencies,
state, territorial, local, and tribal governments, and private
companies. Within the NIPP framework, DHS is responsible for leading
and coordinating the overall national effort to enhance protection via
18 CIKR sectors. The NIPP assigns responsibility for CIKR sectors to
SSAs. As an SSA, DHS has direct responsibility for leading,
integrating, and coordinating efforts of security partners to protect
11 CIKR sectors. The remaining sectors are led by eight other federal
agencies. The following lists the SSAs and their sectors.
Sector Specific Agency:
Sector Specific Agency: Departments of Agriculture[A] and Health and
Human Services[B];
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Agriculture and Food.
Sector Specific Agency: Department of Defense[C];
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Defense Industrial
Base.
Sector Specific Agency: Department of Energy;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Energy[D].
Sector Specific Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Healthcare and Public
Health.
Sector Specific Agency: Department of the Interior;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: National Monuments and
Icons.
Sector Specific Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Banking and Finance.
Sector Specific Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Water[E].
Sector Specific Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of
Infrastructure Protection;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Commercial Facilities;
Critical Manufacturing; Emergency Services; Nuclear Reactors,
Materials, and Waste; Dams; and Chemical Sectors.
Sector Specific Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Office of
Cyber Security and Communications;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Information Technology
and Communications Sectors.
Sector Specific Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation
Security Administration;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Postal and Shipping.
Sector Specific Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation
Security Administration and U. S. Coast Guard[F];
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Transportation
Systems[G].
Sector Specific Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective Service;
Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Sector: Government
Facilities[H].
Source: 2009 National Infrastructure Protection Plan:
[A] The Department of Agriculture is responsible for agriculture and
food (meat, poultry, and egg products).
[B] The Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for food
other than meat, poultry, and egg products.
[C] Nothing in the NIPP impairs or otherwise affects the authority of
the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense (DoD),
including the chain of command for military forces from the President
as Commander in Chief, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of
military forces, or military command and control procedures.
[D] The Energy Sector includes the production, refining, storage, and
distribution of oil, gas, and electric power, except for commercial
nuclear power facilities.
[E] The Water Sector includes drinking water and wastewater systems.
[F] The U.S. Coast Guard is the SSA for the maritime transportation
mode.
[G] In accordance with HSPD-7, the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Homeland Security will collaborate on all matters
relating to transportation security and transportation infrastructure
protection.
[H] The Department of Education is the SSA for the Education Facilities
Subsector of the Government Facilities Sector.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
June 17, 2009:
Mr. Stephen L. Caldwell:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
Re: Draft Report GAO-09-654R, The Department of Homeland Security's
Critical Infrastructure Protection Cost-Benefit Report (GAO Job Code
440794):
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report
referenced above. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials
recognize the short timeframe your team had to fulfill responsibilities
under the Conference Report 108-774 reporting requirement on the costs
and benefits of mandating private sector security measure and
vulnerability reporting that accompanied the Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act, 2005. National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD) officials appreciated your team's professionalism in
conducting this review in an efficient a way as possible to collect the
information needed.
The draft report contains no recommendations but summarizes and
documents DHS's approach to developing this report. NPPD officials
separately provided specific technical comments as suggestions for
enhancing the draft report's clarity and accuracy. Officials
reemphasize that the primary basis for the approach taken in 2005 to
develop the Cost-Benefit Report was to assure that the Department's
mandated public-private partnership building activity be performed
without disruption. A data collection effort to identify costs/benefits
for a regulatory approach to collecting information from private sector
would have stopped the process with questionable success at acquiring
the information. The Paperwork Reduction Act was a factor but not the
primary factor as the draft suggests.
The draft report describes the information sharing programs that NPPD
staff discussed with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
team that have evolved from a public-private partnership foundation
since 2005. Information from the Cost-Benefit Report helped to shape
the development of the regulatory process that was put in place for
selected chemical facilities and the development and implementation of
site security plans for those facilities. In addition, the framework
laid out in the Cost-Benefit report provided the basis for the
development of the current Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource
(CIKR) Information Sharing Environment described in the draft report.
This CIKR Environment has since been adopted as the primary private
sector component of the National Information Sharing Environment by the
Program Manager of the Information Sharing Environment, the Federal
Office established under the 2002 Intelligence Reform and Terrorist
Prevention Act to improve information sharing across the Federal
government and with its security stakeholders. Consequently, the effort
to develop the Cost-Study Report has proved beneficial.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Audit Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Critical Infrastructure: Sector Plans Complete and Sector
Councils Evolving, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1075T] (Washington, D.C.: July 12,
2007); and National Cybersecurity Strategy: Key Improvements are Needed
to Strengthen the Nation's Posture, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-432T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10,
2009).
[2] See generally Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). Title II
of the Homeland Security Act, as amended, primarily addresses the
department's responsibilities for critical infrastructure protection.
[3] The 17 sectors identified pursuant to HSPD-7 are the agriculture
and food sector; the banking and finance sector; the chemical sector;
the commercial facilities sector; the commercial nuclear reactors,
materials, and waste sector; the communications sector; the dams
sector; the defense industrial base sector; the drinking water and
water treatment systems sector; the emergency services sector; the
energy sector; the government facilities sector; the information
technology sector; the national monuments and icons sector; the postal
and shipping sector; the public health and health care sector; and the
transportation systems sector. DHS created the critical manufacturing
sector as an 18TH sector in 2008. Enclosure I discusses how the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) provides the framework
for organizing and managing risk to the U.S.'s CIKR and shows how the
NIPP assigns responsibility for CIKR sectors to SSAs.
[4] DHS issued a revised NIPP in 2009.
[5] See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-774, at 75-76 (Oct. 9, 2004)
(accompanying H.R. 4567, the DHS Appropriations Bill, 2005, and enacted
as Public Law 108-334, 118 Stat. 1298 (2004)). The Conference Report
did not specify a date for submission.
[6] As a result of a subsequent DHS reorganization, the applicable
mission of the Under Secretary for IAIP now resides with the Under
Secretary for National Protection and Programs. Although the Conference
Report specifically directed IAIP to conduct this analysis, we have
generalized this direction to the Department due to its subsequent
reorganization.
[7] Report to Congress: Mandatory Information Sharing for the
Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources: The Costs and
Benefits of Requiring Information from the Private Sector on Security
Measures and Vulnerabilities, Department of Homeland Security, the
Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Partnership and Outreach
Division, (June 2007). This report has been designated For Official Use
Only (FOUO).
[8] According OMB Circular A-4, a quantitative analysis of costs and
benefits would require that benefits and costs be expressed in monetary
or physical units, if possible, so that the regulatory alternative that
maximizes net benefits (the difference between benefits and costs) can
be identified.
[9] DHS officials told us that, based on available records, the first
contractor, MITRE, received over $558,000 and the second contractor,
Energetics, received more than $2.8 million for work related to the
cost-benefit report.
[10] The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act , among other things,
is to minimize the paperwork burden for individuals, small businesses,
and educational and nonprofit institutions, federal contractors, and
state, local and tribal governments, and other persons resulting from
the collection of information by or for the federal government. See 31
U.S.C. § 3501. For a more complete discussion, see GAO, Paperwork
Reduction Act: New Approaches Can Strengthen Information Collection and
Reduce Burden, GAO-06-477T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2006).
[11] DHS officials told us that the document was last revised in June
2007. They said that they continued to coordinate the review of the
last version of the report within DHS but no further versions were
developed.
[12] DHS's report also contains appendices that cover a variety of
topics, including the issue of liability as relates to information
sharing, for example, the damages the owner of a CIKR facility may face
if it did not address identified vulnerabilities if an incident
occurred; the applicability of different regulatory structures to
critical infrastructure protection; and various approaches to the
conduct of cost-benefit analysis.
[13] See Pub. L. No. 109-295, § 550, 121 Stat. 1355, 1388-89 (2006).
[14] Sector Specific Plans are to be developed by the sector specific
agencies in collaboration with other sector partners.
[15] See Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 214, 116 Stat. at 2152-55. See also 71
Fed. Reg. 52,262 (Sept. 1, 2006) (establishing uniform procedures for
the voluntary sharing of critical infrastructure information with DHS)
(codified at 6 C.F.R. pt. 29).
[16] The GCC comprises representatives across various levels of
government (federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial) as
appropriate to the security and operational landscape of each
individual sector. The SCC is the private sector counterpart to the
GCC. These councils are self-organized, self-run, and self-governed
organizations that are representative of a spectrum of key stakeholders
within a sector. SCCs serve as the government's principal point of
entry into each sector for developing and coordinating a wide range of
CIKR protection activities and issues.
[17] According to DHS, HITRAC is a joint infrastructure intelligence
fusion center that combines the expertise of IP's Infrastructure
Analysis and Strategy Division with that of the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis in the Critical Infrastructure Threat Analysis Division.
DHS officials said that HITRAC is to manage a range of analytic
activities of Federal, State, local, and private sector decision-makers
by integrating a variety of models, methodologies, and analytic
techniques.
[18] GAO has conducted evaluations of risk modeling, for example, see
Highway Infrastructure: Federal Efforts to Strengthen Security Should
be Better Coordinated and Targeted on the Nation's Most Critical
Highway Infrastructure, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-57], (Washington, D.C.: January
2009) and Emergency Transit Assistance: Federal Funding for Recent
Disasters and Options for the Future, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-243], (Washington, D.C.: February
2008).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: